» concert piece for 100 metronomes

[J.H.C.]

Originally Posted by rojo

^ Not sure how well it represents today's music, as it was composed in 1962. Although I guess one could argue that in terms of classical music, 1962 wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking.)

You are quite correct sir, perhaps I should have just posted:

Rubbish

[some guy]

"rojo" is a ma'am.

And her point was about contemporaneity, not quality. 1962 was forty-eight years ago, and a lot has happened since then.

But since you've brought "quality" up, you should certainly be able to do better than a dismissive "rubbish." All that does is identify something about you and your listening abilities and your attitudes, which may indeed be interesting, but they are not what this thread is about.

Yes, I know. The thread did start out as an expression of contratrombone64's listening abilities and attitudes. OK, so that IS what this thread is about. How's this, then? Let's try to do more than simply express our attitudes. Let's at least give a wee justification for having them. And maybe even a wee justification for expressing them in the first place.

This is especially true for negative comments. A positive comment carries some built-in justification, after all. Positive comments lead somewhere, open things up generally. Negative ones close everything down. Some things may need to be closed down, you might argue. Well, justify the negative comments, then! Sneers and dismissals do nobody any good.

[Contratrombone64]

so the fact that someone thinks a certain piece of music is rubbish gives someone else the right to determine their cognitive process??

I THINK NOT

[some guy]

Not sure what you're addressing there, Contra. In what way was I determining someone's cognitive process?

I was pointing out that a word like "rubbish" is a dismissal of the thing so designated. Not much cognitive processing necessary to come to that conclusion.

But perhaps it was my use of the word "sneer." That seems a fair assessment of the last couple of posts of yours and J.H.C.'s.

I don't think that you would suggest that I should take everything I read at "face" value, completely oblivious to the daggers of sarcasm you two so carefully crafted. If I did that, I simply be faced with a contradiction: Ligeti is a genius for writing this. This is rubbish. But it's not a contradiction, is it? Statement one is sarcastic (as is "now THERE'S my original composition"), and statement two is not.

Actually, if you'd like to cast your eyes over my post again, you'll see that I was calling for more explication of cognitive processes, from the processors themselves. That is, I'd like to see more than just the conclusion ("rubbish"); I'd like to see the process that led to that conclusion.

[J.H.C.]

Originally Posted by some guy

"rojo" is a ma'am.

My apologies to you rojo I did not intend to offend you

And her point was about contemporaneity, not quality. 1962 was forty-eight years ago, and a lot has happened since then.

Yes I realise that, there is no point in stating the obvious.

But since you've brought "quality" up, you should certainly be able to do better than a dismissive "rubbish." All that does is identify something about you and your listening abilities and your attitudes,

It does no such thing, and I did not use the word quality perhaps you have me confused with some other poster, It was a flippant toss away remark complete with smilie that must have hit a sore point in you,

which may indeed be interesting, but they are not what this thread is about.

What do you see as the purpose of the thread?

Yes, I know. The thread did start out as an expression of contratrombone64's listening abilities and attitudes.

You are very quick to point out what you see as weaknesses in peoples point of view.

OK, so that IS what this thread is about.

Make your mind up

How's this, then? Let's try to do more than simply express our attitudes. Let's at least give a wee justification for having them. And maybe even a wee justification for expressing them in the first place.

I have been playing and listening to music for a long while and have come to various conclusions, I do not have to justify myself to you.

This is especially true for negative comments. A positive comment carries some built-in justification, after all. Positive comments lead somewhere, open things up generally. Negative ones close everything down. Some things may need to be closed down, you might argue. Well, justify the negative comments, then! Sneers and dismissals do nobody any good.

You really are very touchy and I have no intention of getting into an argument with you, I have seen some of your posts on other forums and realise that it is pointless, btw are you a musician or a composer

[some guy]

Well, excuse me for requesting something more than empty, unsubstantiated assertions. If all you want is simply to call names, then you needn't worry that we'll ever get into any sort of conversation!

You've been playing and listening to music for a long while. Seems a pity that you won't share some of that with us.

[J.H.C.]

Originally Posted by some guy

Well, excuse me for requesting something more than empty, unsubstantiated assertions. If all you want is simply to call names, then you needn't worry that we'll ever get into any sort of conversation!

You've been playing and listening to music for a long while. Seems a pity that you won't share some of that with us.

some guy you really are boring me.
NB, I am not calling names, and you would probably find my music boring old stuff so what would be the point of discussing it with you.
I repeat for the last time hoping that you can understand

"You really are very touchy and I have no intention of getting into an argument with you, I have seen some of your posts on other forums and realise that it is pointless, btw are you a musician or a composer???